Coverage For Sick Children? is an important March 29, 2010 New York Times article. Some insurance companies are already arguing that they do not have to provide one of the benefits that the president calls a centerpiece of the law: coverage for certain children with pre-existing conditions. As the article states:

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must
cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require
them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the
“availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and
insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger
political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover
pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does
not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the
insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

Congressional Democrats were furious when they learned that some
insurers disagreed with their interpretation of the law.

“The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children
coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform,” said Representative
Henry A.
Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.